2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders 'saddened' by on-air shooting, but does not call for action on gun violence
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he is “saddened” by the on-air shooting of two television journalists Wednesday."I am saddened by the senseless deaths of Alison Parker and Adam Ward,” the Democratic presidential candidate told The Hill in a statement. "Jane and I have their families and friends in our thoughts.”
<...>
Unlike his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, Sanders did not call for action on gun violence in his initial response to the shooting.
“We must act to stop gun violence, and we cannot wait any longer,” Clinton tweeted Wednesday.
The Democratic candidates have different records when it comes to firearms, with Clinton more firmly in favor of stricter regulations.
http://thehill.com/regulation/252031-sanders-saddened-by-on-air-shooting
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)But right now, I think it's appropriate, and the tasteful and subdued way to respond:
"Jane and I have their families and friends in our thoughts.”
I think it's thoughtful of him that he doesn't come off as using this tragedy as a political opportunity.
I expect that he will reiterate his former support for universal background checks and closing gun show loopholes.
But not now, not within hours of the tragedy.
Sad sad thing.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What proposed regulation did Clinton identify that would have prevented this from happening?
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Seems like the Republicans are fine with changing the constitution for birthright citizenship, ending separation of Church and state, etc but they cling to the 2nd amendment no matter how many needlessly die. It's time to revisit the actual language used by the the ammendment where it says "well regulated".
I am glad both candidates spoke out. Something has to be done.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Impossible. Never was in the constitution to begin with.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Of course, Yeoman6987, you are right but many of the same folk who buy the NRA propaganda would love for this Country to be ruled by Church.
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... So, please forgive my poor articulation in my preceding comment. I hope you get the gist of what I was saying. The extreme right is fine with dismantling the rule of law and human freedom for some things but not when it comes to regulating guns.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I think that use of the word "People" instead of "A Person" is very telling as the people make up the militia but a person makes up a person. So essentially it could be read to mean that we will arm the army. No? I am not a learned man, just a regular guy reading the law of the land and drawing what I think is a logical conclusion.
So, I think that sensible gun control is appropriate in the 21st century - not just because of the actual reading of the amendment- but because we desire to form a more perfect union and the right of the people to enjoy the public square without such insane danger is part and parcel of that desire.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)But I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.
A person cannot assemble by him or herself?
I've already explained my understanding of People in the 2nd and
in the next instances you offered... the People's right to be secure in their persons... Still plural. The collective "We the people." No?
As represented by our government. Of, for, and by.
I believe that individuals should have the right to a hand gun or rifle for self defense, etc. I also think common sense regulations are important for the safety or the community. Also where does this amendment right end? Are grenades okay? Bazookas in the home? I sure don't feel too comfy with the whole open carry thing where everyone is walking around intimidating people in the public square with their guns strapped on them like we are living in some post-apocolyptic state instead of a civilized society.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Whats her plan to stop gun violence?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How many times do we have to tell you this?
I knew someone would try to use this tragedy to smear Bernie.
The op didn't disappoint.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)In addition, she is MUCH stronger on gun control than Bernie. Look, your candidate is not perfect, no matter how much you want to believe he is.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Give it a rest.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Your version of the truth is not reality, no matter how much you repeat it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)They actually helped him get elected to congress. You apparently don't know your candidate very well.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I know both my candidate and why certain people lie about him all too well.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Or stop making the claim, I'm tired of your bullshit accusations.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Can you point me to a different article that proves your point?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Yes that helped Bernie, but your good pal Maggie flatly asserted that they "bankrolled" him. They have NEVER donated to him.
The NRA didn’t campaign for Sanders in 1990, and Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for his presidential bid and a longtime adviser, noted that Sanders supported an assault weapons ban and never embraced a pro-gun message.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185.html
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)sadly
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)He twice voted against the Brady Bill, THE principal gun control legislation of the past several decades.
He voted against mandatory background checks at gun shows.
He voted FOR the Manufacturers Firearms Protection Act that granted gun corporations immunity from liability from victims families, a bill that enables gun makers to get away with knowingly selling to illegal arms dealers without facing any financial consequences. He recently defended his vote for that law and repeated the gun lobby spin on the bill that it merely keeps them from being sued from illegal use of their weapon. That is a false representation of the law, which has been widely used for full-scale immunity. The Sandyhook families now must pay a huge amount of money to gun corporations as a penalty for daring to attempt a suit. It is corporate privilege, a privilege that does not extend to other sectors of the economy--not Wall Street or makers of automobiles or knives--just Big Gun.
Here are his full list of votes on guns.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns#.Vd5qPLTydUQ
He voted to ALLOW loaded guns in national parks.
He voted for an amendment to ACA that prohibits medical providers and insurance companies from collecting data on gun ownership.
He voted to prohibit funds in the Indigenous Health Bill (S 1200) from being used to "carry out any anti-firearm program, gun buy-back program, or program to discourage or stigmatize the private ownership of firearms for collecting, hunting, or self-defense."
His ratings on the gun issue are inconstant. He has F ratings, but he also had a 25% rating from the NRA and 50% from the Gun Owners of America, whereas pro-gun control Democrats have a 0 percent. I read that he had a C- at one point, but that rating is not reflected in the chart below.
rating.http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27110/bernie-sanders37#.Vd5wcLTydUS
The Brady campaign recently gave him a 100% rating but in the past have given him 66% and 71%. He is not a gun nut, not in the pocket of the NRA, but he has voted against crucial gun control legislation. He is not the candidate for someone who makes increased gun control a high voting priority.
Compare him with, for example, Hillary Clinton whose ratings are consistently F- from the NRA, 100% from the Brady Campaign and 0% from the Gun Owners of America. http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/55463/hillary-clinton/37#.Vd5xwrTydUQ
As Cali pointed out, the NRA ran ads against Sanders opponent in a House race in VT. There is no shortage of evidence on that subject in the press, including summaries of the ads telling conservatives to vote for the socialist who protects gun rights. The NRA operates by running ads for or against opponents because they are regulated by the same campaign finance restrictions of direct contributions to candidates as every other lobbying group.
Those are the relevant facts, complete with links for anyone who cares to inform themselves on the issue.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If you can't address what was actually said don't waste my time.
Until you do I won't read your screeds so you can stop wasting your time as well.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)You obviously didn't bother reading. Naturally you aren't interested because the issue is irrelevant to you. What matters is Bernie's career. Only 38,000 people every year die from guns in this country. That's hardly worth reading what someone's voting record, rating or advertising support from the NRA is. Your reaction illustrates why there is no effective gun control in this country and why we have the highest homicide rate in the Global North. People simply can't be bothered, especially when most of the daily violence is in neighborhoods like mine rather than the suburban enclaves of the $80k+ a year.
No, I didn't imagine you would care, but I believe some readers will, so I posted it for their benefit. I can't force anyone to care. I can only provide the information and links for those who are interested in knowing where their elected representatives actually stand on issues.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Everything else you added including the claim that I don't care is just more exploitation of a terrible tragedy.
I can always count on you to try to associate the still warm bodies with Bernie who is pro-gun control.
But keep it up, obviously you didn't read the responses to this thread or you'd realize how sickened people are by such behaviour from Hillary's supporters.
See this thread for how it makes you look:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251549422
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Thanks.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're welcome.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)They spent $18k helping him get elected and he voted against Brady in return. That's awful to be bought like that, don't you think?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
Autumn
(45,084 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 26, 2015, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Oh yeah,some guy said. No proof, just a guy and his BS. I think you must have stopped reading there because nowhere in that article does it state Bernie was bankrolled by the NRA. In fact it goes on to talk about his F rating from the NRA and gun groups in Vermont don't trust him because they consider him anti gun.
I'm glad Bernie just talked about how saddened he is and how he and Jane are keeping the family and friends of the victims of this senseless tragedy in their thoughts instead of politicizing it like Hillary did.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Sanders voted against the original Brady Act in 1993, which required background checks for most gun purchasers, but voted to expand background checks to all gun sales in 2013.
http://thehill.com/regulation/252031-sanders-saddened-by-on-air-shooting
Sancho
(9,070 posts)He consistently votes against waiting periods and in favor of the gun industry. Here's a few examples to get you started.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/10/bernies-big-break-with-the-left-on-guns
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-misleading-characterization-of-a-controversial-gun-law/
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/417180805/bernie-sanders-walks-a-fine-line-on-gun-control
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/07/12/gun-control-crowd-still-sour-over-sanders-view-on-second-amendment-n2024288
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Throwing up a bunch of links to opinion pieces doesn't count.
Try again.
Bernie is pro-gun control.
Prove I'm wrong.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Bernie uses EXCUSES to ALWAYS avoid waiting periods, serious background checks, and checks on transportation of firearms. Then he supports laws to prevent holding the gun manufacturers liable - the only product with such an exclusion of all US companies.
He showed himself on Meet the Press - using the "code words" that gun advocates look for...and remember, I'm a gun owner and ex NRA member. I KNOW exactly what he's doing.
He talks about finding a way to reduce violence while preserving the individual hunter and state rights. Bull S***!!
Universal background checks on ALL sales, waiting periods on ALL sales, licenses for possession of guns, and serious restrictions.
Bernie is a hypocrite on this issue in another way - he constantly talks about Scandinavia's wonderful social system!!! Check out their gun laws. Here's a few more examples! There are more if you'd like....
A socialist like Scandinavia on everything EXCEPT guns:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-31/no-really-what-s-the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-a-socialist-
What it means is that one takes a hard look at countries around the world who have successful records in fighting and implementing programs for the middle class and working families. When you do that, you automatically go to countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and other countries that have had labor governments or social democratic governments, and what you find is that in virtually all of those countries, health care is a right of all people and their systems are far more cost-effective than ours, college education is virtually free in all of those countries, people retire with better benefits, wages that people receive are often higher, distribution of wealth and income is much fairer, their public education systems are generally stronger than ours.
Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.
Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.
With the exception of law enforcement, only specially trained security guards may carry loaded weapons in public. There is almost no regulation of air rifles or crossbows, except that it is illegal to carry or fire them in public. Guns are divided into 13 firearms categories and four action categories; some of which are limited. Fully automatic weapons, rockets and cannons (so called "destructive" weapons), for example, are generally not permitted.
In November 2007 Finland updated their gun laws, pre-empting a new EU directive prohibiting the carrying of firearms by under-18's by removing the ability of 15- to 18-year-olds to carry hunting rifles under parental guidance. In 2011, after controversial high school shootings in 2008 prompted government review, a constitutional law committee concluded that people over the age of 20 can receive a permit for semiautomatic handguns. Though individuals have to show a continuous activity in a handguns sporting for last two years before they can have a license for their own gun.
A person may be granted license to own up to six hunting rifles, ten pistols or a mix of eight rifles and pistols. Owning more firearms than this requires a valid reason. Firearms must be stored in an approved gun safe.
0.[117] A concealed carry permit can be obtained under very special circumstances, such as a proven and very real threat to one's life. Carrying a firearm in public is, otherwise, limited to law enforcement and specially trained security officers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Finland
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But keep it up, watching you try to prove Bernie's a gun nut never gets old.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)If he changes his mind and supports universal background checks, restrictions on guns, laws to prevent transportation, waiting periods, licenses, required training, and required gun security - then let me know!!!
He just waffles on this issue.
Here's what I'm looking for...we'll see how close any Democrats get to this, but right now Bernie is the weakest.
People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Still twisting in the wind, Dan.
But keep wasting your time trying to prove an opinion.
This is fascinating.
randys1
(16,286 posts)And if he was, when.
Was it a long time ago, has he been since
Etc
cali
(114,904 posts)Yeah, that.
Link to anything that proves the nra has donated to Sanders.
I won't hold my breath.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Anything more recent?
cali
(114,904 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)They spent zero on Hillary, in year never.
He is not with the mainstream of liberals on the issue of gun control. That's a fact.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And Hillary's pro-death penalty stance puts her far to the right of Bernie.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Fact is fact.
But let's not deflect from the actual issue. He is against the mainstream liberal view on gun control policy. He wouldn't do shit to advance gun control. That couldn't be more clear based on his record.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'll take the more progressive candidate over Hillary.
Thanks for playing.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Deal with it. Worst of any person running for the Democratic nomination, in fact. He is the LAST choice for a voter that wants to see progress on gun control.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And we all know what your word is worth.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Don't just claim it. Prove it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Before he ran you were a good DUer until you were PROVOKED into getting all your posts hidden by those mean ole Bernie supporters.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's odd that you can never seem to back up any of your claims with any evidence, don't you think?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I can't afford any more irony meters, please stop.
That one sent shrapnel into the next county and I can't afford liability insurance either.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)When you resort to making a personal attack as a reaction to a disagreement on issues, intelligent people see that as a HUGE tell that you're unable to actually defend your position.
I hope that tip helps you. 
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Please stop, I have to feed my animals and you're bankrupting me.
cali
(114,904 posts)the nra bankrolling Bernie. You and facts aren't even on casual terms.
It's a fact. I know it's inconvenient, but it is what it is.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I don't think she sees that each time she creates yet another negative falsehood about Sanders, her reputation as someone who can be believed is damaged. At this point, if she claimed that the sky was blue, I'd want to look outside to verify. And it's a real shame to completely destroy one's own reputation at a site where she isn't going to change anyone's mind anyway. No matter who wins in the primaries and the general, I'll forget most of the play-by-play, but I'll never forget the dishonest brokers who worked to deceive.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm no saint but I haven't lied about any of the candidates or their supporters, I have to live with myself after the primaries.
I figure if they're willing to do that for Hillary they'll probably do it after the primaries as well.
cali
(114,904 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)The links seem to be some sort of "references" that mention his name. I know he SAID he comes from a state that has many hunters and he's not opposed to people hunting. And frankly I seriously doubt Hillary Clinton would attempt to make a big issue out of this fact.
It's offensive to use these links to try to imply that he condones ALL the gun violence we continually see in this country! I'm sure if asked he would make this perfectly clear to anyone. Supporting people who hunt as a sport is VERY, VERY different from how guns are used as a sport to KILL PEOPLE!
Funny, Bernie doesn't believe in attack ads against his opponents but somehow he thinks guns are fine to kill people. Not buying what's trying to be sold here. But.... PROCEED I'm sure "some" will jump on the train.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)away that doesn't neatly fit in their dreams of a perfect liberal, no-nonsense, unapologetic socialist candidate. The kicker is, Bernie Sanders is anything but, based on his votes on crucial bills in the past - and as a President Obama supporter and a sympathizer and supporter of #BlackLivesMatter and immigrants, I'm not buying his snake oil now.
Everyone and their uncle knows that Bernie Sanders voted consistently against any measure of sensible gun control, just like Latinos know that he voted against the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill when Dems controlled both chambers of Congress and even had G.W. Bush on their side, willing to push that bill to get passed.
Sure, he voted for the immigration bill in 2013 but then he knew it was going nowhere since, by then, Republicans took control of Congress. He knew it didn't have a snowball's chance in Hades to pass a Republican-controlled Congress, but it sure does make him appear Latino-friendly as he eyed the 2016 presidential election, doesn't it? I.O.W., it was politically expedient for him to do so.
But that's not the shame. The shame in this is, he bills himself as an unapologetic socialist liberal and his supporters propagate that myth, yet he voted like a Republican on sensible gun laws, immigration reform, the Import/Export bill (as the only Senator who isn't a Republican) - a bill that would help American businesses create jobs here at home and sell their products around the world — all at no cost to taxpayers.
In 2012, he also called to have President Obama primaried.
His excuse for voting against the 2007 immigration bill was because it included guest worker language he disagreed with. Guess what? So did the 2013 immigration bill - and yet he voted for it. His 2007 vote against against comprehensive immigration reform had the best chance to pass in Congress and signed into law by G.W. Bush.
His call to primary President Obama is equally reprehensible.
The more I learn about Bernie Sanders, the least attractive as a Democratic presidential candidate he is to me.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Great post.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Feel free, MaggieD. You have my full permission. I no longer bother posting OPs on this site since I know that the people who see through Bernie Sanders' thinly veiled conservative stances on important Democratic issues (fiery lefty rhetoric aside) already know all all of this, and those who don't, don't care. The majority of those "don't cares" are anti-Obama as well. Not all, but the vast majority, and that's why they do the rah-rah for Bernie Sanders...after all, he, together with Nader, called to have President Obama primaried. Wait until people in the Black community hear about that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... That he called for a primary on Obama. It's the fastest way to give them the real deal on the Bern. And so far it's been VERY effective for me.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Yeah, I can see why you wouldn't want to post something like that.
Cha
(297,220 posts)And, this..
In 2012, he also called to have President Obama primaried.
"His excuse for voting against the 2007 immigration bill was because it included guest worker language he disagreed with. Guess what? So did the 2013 immigration bill - and yet he voted for it. His 2007 vote against against comprehensive immigration reform had the best chance to pass in Congress and signed into law by G.W. Bush."
His call to primary President Obama is equally reprehensible.
Mahalo BlueCali, I totally agree 
jeff47
(26,549 posts)(...)
The NRA didn’t campaign for Sanders in 1990, and Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for his presidential bid and a longtime adviser, noted that Sanders supported an assault weapons ban and never embraced a pro-gun message.
“The easy position would have been to be against the assault weapons ban,” said Weaver, pushing back on the idea that Sanders catered to the NRA for political purposes. (Weaver made the comments before the Charleston shooting.)
(...)
While in Congress, Sanders continued to oppose the Brady Bill because of the waiting period, which he said should be determined at the state level. He voted against the bill but in favor of an amendment from then-West Virginia Democratic Rep. Harley Staggers for an instant background check for all handgun purchases.
But hey, why on earth would I expect more from you?
senz
(11,945 posts)All this folderol about Bernie being bankrolled by the NRA is so blatantly false it could be Fox News/ Rush Limbaugh spew.
It's hard to believe we're talking to so-called Democrats.
Thank you, jeff47, for keeping it straight.
cali
(114,904 posts)let alone bankrolling him, in the article you linked to. In fact there is this:
The NRA didn’t campaign for Sanders in 1990, and Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for his presidential bid and a longtime adviser, noted that Sanders supported an assault weapons ban and never embraced a pro-gun message.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185.html#ixzz3jxzuhGLs
I honestly don't understand people who make false claims and link to something they falsely claim confirms their original false claim.
Too weird for me.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)The NRA has largely turned on Sanders — his most recent grade from the group is a D- and he has received an F before.
And Ed Cutler, president of Gun Owners of Vermont, said gun-rights group in the state just don’t trust him. “We, in Vermont, consider him anti-gun,” he said.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185.html
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You should read your own 'sources' before you throw them up to save yourself embarrassment when they don't back your claim.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The NRA didn’t campaign for Sanders in 1990, and Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for his presidential bid and a longtime adviser, noted that Sanders supported an assault weapons ban and never embraced a pro-gun message.
While in Congress, Sanders continued to oppose the Brady Bill because of the waiting period, which he said should be determined at the state level. He voted against the bill but in favor of an amendment from then-West Virginia Democratic Rep. Harley Staggers for an instant background check for all handgun purchases.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185.html#ixzz3jyUHujD8
There is nothing in your link about NRA bankrolling Bernie. Either provide proof or stop using this lie as an argument against Sanders.
The Brady Bill vote was in 1993, long before the recent rash of mass shootings that have raised the issue of guns in the US. Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the United States. Things have changed a lot recently. I think it's time to look at a policy like Australia has, where hunting rifles are OK but other guns are banned. But you and I both know this is going to be a tough battle...maybe even one that results in civil war or civil dissobedience. There is nothing that a President can do overnight to fix this.
More from your link:
How is this wrong? If guns were defective and causing deaths it would be one thing, but they are not. I would have to agree with his stance on this. Although I would agree to ban a lot of weapons and gun paraphernalia sold today in the US, and hopefully we will see progress on this over time. I also hope to see Bernie progress toward this goal too. It can take time to change people's minds.Weaver defended the 2005 vote, saying that while Sanders wants to ban assault weapons, gun manufacturers shouldn’t be sued if their product works effectively.
In 2013, he voted for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban — the recent landmark gun legislation in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting – and expressed reservations about the impact.
The NRA has largely turned on Sanders — his most recent grade from the group is a D- and he has received an F before.
And Ed Cutler, president of Gun Owners of Vermont, said gun-rights group in the state just don’t trust him. “We, in Vermont, consider him anti-gun,” he said.
You might want to be more careful about the links you provide to try to make your point.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)that Bernie Sanders has a spotty record on gun control, and Hillary Clinton is for gun control, what about the rest of the issues?
Wall Street?
Keystone?
International trade?
Campaign finance reform?
Domestic surveillance?
War and Peace?
When it comes to those issues, Bernie Sanders comes out on top. It would be wise not to smear Sanders when those are bare facts and naked truths.
Hillary says she'll prosecute Wall St. criminals if elected. Her top 10 largest donors include Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)But after Smith came out in support of an assault-weapons ban after opposing it in his successful 1988 campaign against Sanders, the NRA invested heavily in defeating him — an opposition campaign that likened Smith to Pinocchio for his flip-flop and featured bumper stickers: “Smith and Wesson — Yes, Smith in Congress — No.”
The NRA didn’t campaign for Sanders in 1990, and Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for his presidential bid and a longtime adviser, noted that Sanders supported an assault weapons ban and never embraced a pro-gun message.
“The easy position would have been to be against the assault weapons ban,” said Weaver, pushing back on the idea that Sanders catered to the NRA for political purposes. (Weaver made the comments before the Charleston shooting.)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185.html#ixzz3k0anx0hi
artislife
(9,497 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm not a puretopian, and I don't believe there is such thing as a perfect candidate. Now they may project perfection onto their candidate but that is only in their mind. It is certainly not reality.
cali
(114,904 posts)And everyone here has seen that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Of what it is in MY head, so I will just chalk this up to your typical failure to read my mind.
cali
(114,904 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Look up. One of Bernie supporters admitted it. The NRA spent $18K helping him get elected in 1990. Have a nice day!!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Tell us how having a Dem lobbyist bundle for a candidate, whose firm once had a private prison corp as a client, is exactly like the NRA spending $18K on your behalf in a congressional election.
Go for it, make your case. LOL!
Hey, but wait - just a few minutes ago you were claiming he wasn't directly helped in his election by the NRA. Did you suddenly realize you were wrong? Progress!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It really is. Have a nice day.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But keep on with the personal attacks. Says more about you than me.
840high
(17,196 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Bump the player, I think the record is skipping.
MoveIt
(399 posts)REPETITION
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)that if one seeks a perfect candidate, or someone who s/he agrees with 100%, s/he might be better off running for office themselves.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)What's at stake is making life worth living for average Americans. That's the whole point of the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the government created in the U.S. Constitution.
Back someone who believes in those things. Not someone who pursues the presidency for personal satisfaction.
Stand up and be counted, Maggie.
cali
(114,904 posts)after being repeatedly informed you are spreading a falsehood. Bernie never, fucking ever took money from the NRA.
Don't you have any compunction about behaving like that?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The NRA spent heavily in that 1988 race to get him into office.
cali
(114,904 posts)You are in denial about your candidate, Cali.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I really hope you keep kicking this because there may be one or two people on DU who aren't familiar with your tactics.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Not a real poster expressing real opinions, but a performance.
Nothing else makes sense
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Maybe if we throw some coins in a hat she'll go away.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I mean - when you state BS over and over, it eventually becomes truth. IT's sorta like how they took the word "entitlements" and made it sound like welfare or handouts. SS and Medicare ain't a handout I'm due just cause I'm not independently wealthy - but that's what they've convinced a lot of their knuckle-dragging dipshits.
Think WMDs - think hailed as liberators - think of oil paying for itself. LOL! There's even a few old pachyderms that STILL believe that stuff. All because it was repeated often enough that it hypnotized the weak into chanting along.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The GOP turned 'liberal' into a slur, scientists into delusional zealots and Bush into a hero.
And our friends here on DU are continuing the proud tradition by trying to turn a progressive lion into a shill for the gun industry.
I hope they're proud of themselves.
frylock
(34,825 posts)We should all quit feeding it.
cali
(114,904 posts)
MuseRider
(34,109 posts)She has been here almost as long as I have with not many posts, probably most around elections but I don't know and don't care enough to look it up. Just a guess. Oddly as strange as all this is I would think that I would remember her. Don't even care to look it up though.
Can't be real.
senz
(11,945 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)I would qualify, and all I can say is wow. Just wow.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Hopefully people can learn from my mistakes.
Hillary must be the candidate at all costs.
To heck with her truths and actions, can't question them.
But making up sh*t is fine.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But you knew that.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Doesn't $$ as per Sanders supporters make them beholden to special interests? That's all I hear around here regarding another candidate.
Or is that line of thought just not operable because it's Bernie Sanders.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Prove he's bankrolled by the NRA or stop making the claim, it's that simple.
Put up or shut up.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)word that suits you. Doesn't make it false when someone uses a word you don't happen to like.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)But hey, what does the truth matter when it suits your political agenda?
Would you like me to remind you of this the next time the GOP lies about Clinton?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)funny, that's not what I recall reading. It's pretty well documented.
And since it is well documented, you can go and find a link if you need.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)How odd.
You know, I recall reading lots and lots and lots of things about the Clintons. They're pretty well documented by Drudge and others. Shall we talk about those too?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)You can go find your own link if you like.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)How weird. You're even on the Internet and Google's right there.
How about MaggieD's article so we don't even have to search
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185.html
“The easy position would have been to be against the assault weapons ban,” said Weaver, pushing back on the idea that Sanders catered to the NRA for political purposes. (Weaver made the comments before the Charleston shooting.)
Boy, look at all that well-documented NRA support!!!
short circuit
(145 posts)You have been repeatedly asked to provide proof that NRA donated to Bernie.
We patiently wait.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)They did a lot to help him out.
And he sat quiet and accepted it. Played the game like any good politician would, I suppose.
If anything, it shows he's not above everyone else and principles sometimes find their way out the window.
Wonder why he voted against the Brady Bill. Do you think it was quid pro quo? I hope not. I don't think so. You know his opponent lost in that election for voting for an AWB.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Cuz, you know he's such a gun nut and all....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The gun nut claim has been disproved time and time again but they never give up.
I guess it's easier than trying to sell Hillary.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)A: They can't sell Hillary
B: They can't touch Bernie without lying
Their 'solution' is to make things up
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Notice how most other HC supporters are staying far away from this spectacle?
They see it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)There is a small group of about a dozen who, lacking integrity, will do or say anything. They post op after op of made up accusations and jump into Sanders threads throwing stink bombs.
It's it a pretty sad testament to their candidate when they feel such dishonest behavior is their only means of supporting her.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Hypocrites for Hillary 2016 should be their slogan.
senz
(11,945 posts)Perfectly.
senz
(11,945 posts)It's easier than trying to sell Hillary. That's it.
Your performance on this thread has been breathtaking, bmus. You're like a fencer -- quick, lithe, and incisive. So focused. Wish I could do it. I hope you enjoy it, green kitty. 
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Two jurors voted to leave it.
Thanks for the nice thought, but I am still livid.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)I saw it and could not believe they would insinuate Sander's into supporting ANYTHING of that nature . It was a truly low act .
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What's next, ads from Stormfront?
senz
(11,945 posts)They'll do anything, say anything to help her win.
Thank you for telling me about it. I'm not livid, just full of contempt.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The fact that someone posted that video here under the guise of "concern" tells me they're every bit as vile as their counterparts on the right who trash Hillary.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Are you saying Bernie has evolved?
If so, I'm happy to see it. Evolution is a good thing. Wouldn't you say?
But some of his votes on guns really shit the bed and his votes were political and helped to lead us to where we are today one and two decades later.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I guess we're done here.
Your claim that he took money from the NRA is false, your claim that he doesn't support gun control is false and your attempt to exploit a tragedy to help your candidate is exposed for all to see.
Good job today, Boston Bean.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)YOU have claimed he did and that it is documented. There are sites that list all the donations made to politicians throughout their careers. You made the claim, bean. It's your responsibility to link to the proof.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Even sent out flyers saying to vote for the socialist (the NRA did).
Then in 1993 Bernie voted against the Brady Bill.
Just 3 short years after he beat his opponent, with help from the NRA, because his opponent voted for an AWB.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)someones campaign.
That wouldn't be the case for Bernie in this instance. Sure it wasn't a super pac as we know them today, it was the NRA who basically acted like the ones we have today.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Post proof of your claim.
I'll wait and if you do I'll edit my post.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)dirty because of it. That she accepts money from undesirables. That money in politics is bad.
Well, the NRA got their way in Vermont, by spending money for Bernie, by castigating his opponent. All the while Bernie stood the side and said nary a peep.
The point here is he is a politician. He knows what the NRA can do to someone in Vermont. That is why he treads very carefully and votes the way he does.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The point is dishonesty and who's guilty of it.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)elections or bank roll them or whatever.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)they bank rolled elections.
Or I was wrong to assume the reason for your offense to my saying that you thought super pacs were bad and bankrolled elections meant you didn't think super pac were bad and bankrolled elections.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Super pacs don't bank roll campaigns and aren't bad
or
Super pacs do bank roll campaigns and ARE bad
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This:
And this:
Either prove your claims or admit you were wrong and that you lied about what I said.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I go by what I recall.
If I had the wrong impression that you didn't think super pacs bankroll campaigns, I apologize to you.
If you never gave the impression or said that Hillary accepting super pac money made her dirty in some way, I apologize to you.
If you don't think super pacs are cool and don't influence elections or bank roll them or whatever, I apologize to you.
Let me know if I apologized correctly and to the right thing.
Cause if you actually do feel any of the above, I'm not sure what I just apologized for. I'm a little confused, but am ready to make a forthright apology to anything you may disagree with above.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Now you're giving me a conditional apology that if I accept means I think super pacs are cool.
Nice try.
You're not sorry you lied about me but I'll bet you're sorry this is all on record for everyone to see.
Thank you for once again showing your true colours.
Some people will do and say anything to promote their candidate.
Again, good job today.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)in this election, for most Sanders supporters it is a humongous issue. You are the rare bird, I guess.
Since that seems to be the case (from what I can gather and your clapping for my apology to you for never saying what I presumed), I fall upon my knee and offer my sincere apologies.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I want to make sure the next person you try this on knows what you're up to.
When you're ready to admit you were wrong I'll be ready accept your sincere apology.
But I won't hold my breath, I have yet to see you do the right thing.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)I just apologized to you for saying all those wrong things where I thought you thought about how bad super pacs were.
You have set me straight, I have given the mea culpa, what more do you want?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)You told me that I was lying.
Then when I said I didn't know you didn't feel that super pacs were bad and bank rolled elections, you told me to stop putting words in your mouth.
Now what is it you want me to do about that.
I can't figure it out.
Which way did I lie.
Let me know.
Possibly, you don't feel anything at all about super pacs and have never ever given an opinion on one. OK, if that is the case I apologize.
Have I sufficiently covered all the bases for you?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)You guys are really something else.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)This vast reservoir of information that you claim exists, but refuse to cite......where is it?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So you either:
A: made it up
B: heard it from someone else who made it up
Oh, and I did google it, and after a bit of searching quickly realized why you don't provide a link. One cannot provide that which does not exist.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That's why you have no source.
Just more made up nonsense.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)As confirmed by taking your advise. But you have already admitted you do not have a link to it.
There is a small group of about a dozen who, lacking integrity, will do or say anything. They post op after op of made up accusations and jump into Sanders threads throwing stink bombs.
It's it a pretty sad testament to their candidate when they feel such dishonest behavior is their only means of supporting her.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
boston bean
(36,221 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Your unsourced claim against Sanders is still false, BTW.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)One would need an electron microscope to find it.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Good thing in real life, I have lots of people who think I'm a really good person and love me. I have a respectable job I have been in for years where people come to me for advice, where I manage large deals for clients.
I do my best for my family and people important to me, I live my life to the best of my ability in doing for others. Most people appreciate me.
Good thing DU isn't my real life.
I don't do personal insults or attacks. I will argue a point vehemently, but I don't go around calling people names or personally insult them. To me that is third grade.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=549218
But hey, if you're fine with people knowing that I don't mind pointing it out.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Personal attacks and insults are something completely different and are quite obvious and mean and childish.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Accusing the people who nailed you on it of personally attacking you won't change that fact.
Keep kicking this thread, everyone who sees it will remember which supporters are exploiting today's tragedy.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)You ranted and raved I said something untrue about what you said in the past. Hounded and hounded me for an apology, which I gave three ways, even though each contradicted the other. ie, I apologized for saying you said one thing and then apologized again for saying I didn't realize you felt the opposite way.
And I didn't lie about Bernie either.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)73. umm, he was given money by them and supported by them, use whatever word that suits you. Doesn't make it false when someone uses a word you don't happen to like.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=548882
short circuit
(145 posts)with prompts by cali, beam me up scottie, and Aging American - we have a deflection performance made by boston bean.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)on this website.
I'm not a link lackey. People do have their own fingertips they can type queries into google themselves.
If they don't believe what I say and want to disprove it, go and search and post the proof of my being wrong.
short circuit
(145 posts)connecting NRA and Bernie. None.
We all tried. It's your turn.
beevul
(12,194 posts)If they don't believe what I say and want to disprove it, go and search and post the proof of my being wrong.
That's not how it works.
Your assertions are yours to prove - if you assert something, the onus is on you to provide proof.
The people you're arguing with, are rightly proceeding by the old maxim: That which is asserted without evidence, is likewise dismissed without evidence.
Again, your assertions are yours to prove.
FWIW, I haven't decided on a candidate so far, so I don't have a dog, other than proper message board etiquette, in this fight.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Once he gets elected he votes against the Brady bill. You'd be screaming from the top of your lungs that Hillary was in the tank for the NRA if she did that. Hell, Sanders supporters scream about Goldman non-stop even though they can't point to a single thing she did for them.
I'm not the one who isn't grasping facts here.
cali
(114,904 posts)Deal with it.
You know, mags, in all my years at DU, I've only seen one other poster elicit the negative actions you do.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)That's why he voted against the Brady Bill. He wanted to get re-elected. He understood bucking that little issue in VT would make him lose his seat.
He knew from experience.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)And a few other gun issues.
He does not have a more progressive record on this. It is lacking. Just admit it and move on. Jesus, it's not the end of the world.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Stop making up lies about Bernie and I'll move on.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Which you are unable to cite?
Lancero
(3,003 posts)But a single donation from that far back hardly is bankrolling.
But, if you can show that he has since taken money from them in more recent years - Or has continued to take money from them on a yearly basis since then - then please do so.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Lancero
(3,003 posts)Color me not surprised.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)You agreed he benefited from the NRA.
I said I was speaking of an election in 1990, nothing else.... so, you GOT me!
cali
(114,904 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Against his opponent and send mailers to citizens to vote for Bernie.
cali
(114,904 posts)put up or......
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Maybe Bernie was ahead of his time. LOL
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Her pro-death penalty position puts her far to the right of Bernie when it comes to civil rights.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)If it isn't true for Bernie, then it isn't true for Hillary.
If it is true Hillary, then it is true for Bernie as well.
The double standards around here are mile wide.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Your use of this tragedy to push a meme about Bernie is disgusting.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)against his opponent and supported him and also sent out flyers. And he accepted it with nary a peep.
Then in 1993 went and voted against the Brady Bill, when he was helped by the NRA to beat an opponent who the NRA was mad at for supporting an AWB.
cali
(114,904 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,555 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Yes, they ran ads against Peter.
And with all the filthy money that your candidate greedily goes after for both political and personal benefit, it's more than a little ironic to see you preaching.
Private prison money goes directly to hilly.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)If that's not running ads for him I don't know what is.
Listen, Bernie is a politician. Don't be so upset by it. He knows first hand what the NRA can do to an opponent. That is why he treads very carefully around this issue.
I don't think he's a gun nut. I think he's a politician. No better than anyone else running.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm upset by boldface lies. That simple. And I certainly know Bernie better than you.
Look, the reason I can't support your candidate under any circumstances is simple. I believe she's corrupt.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)I mean just check out some of her support in this thread . Corruption spreads .
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I've been a member here for over ten years and this person reminds of someone else who used to drive me up the wall with all her nonsense. I don't post like I used to so I'm not even sure if she's still around, but if she is she needs to "hook up" with Maggie and they can do double duty.
Some of you may know who I'm talking about, but she's one reason I had to take a break from time to time. Still, she is/was entitled to her opinion and she certainly posted more links than almost anyone I've ever seen.
Hmmmm, I need to check the member list now that I think about it.
beevul
(12,194 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I didn't find a current membership list so don't know if she's still here. I'll keep trying to find out.
840high
(17,196 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)In the next presidential election, regardless of who it is and am on the fence regarding who I'd prefer (probably someone who isn't a current candidate to be honest). But to state that Hillary is "much stronger" on gun control is stretching the facts -- I am not aware of a single concrete proposal from Hillary on the gun control issue. Instead, I've seen "fight the NRA" and "stop gun violence," which is great but in reality is nothing more than platitudes. If Hillary has actually proposed real, concrete action on the issue in the last year please point me to it. More than happy to admit I'm wrong.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
riversedge
(70,218 posts)this horrible day?? get real. Your candidate offered NOTHING in his comments.
she was in IOWA and gave comments. Watch her video.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)Maybe you lot could try to not turn it into a political point when the bodies haven't even cooled . This OP offers nothing but it does deserve contempt . A truly low tactic .
artislife
(9,497 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)sheshe2
(83,759 posts)is of the time we need to let the bodies cool off before we are allowed to react.
Is it a day, a week, six months, a year or more. When do WE ADDRESS THIS!?
George II
(67,782 posts)
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)article about this horrific event to score a cheap political point.
The author of this article makes it clear that he has a political axe to grind.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)As we are reminded each time this crap occurs. Does it just become nothing of importance because Bernie is not liberal on the issue? SMH! Talk about being an acolyte (like you accused me of being).
cali
(114,904 posts)And, sorry but I regularly criticize Sanders unlike you you with Clinton. I have. criticized him on his vote on Brady bill. I think his current position on gun control is fine. And I'm tired of hollow words from politicians. The only possible way to do anything beyond what Bernie supports already is the Supreme Court, and even that is a long shot. There is no way to enact the kind of strict gun control that is needed to put a dent in gun violence. And politically speaking, it's not a good issue to emphasize in the general. I guarantee you that if Hillary is the nominee she'll downplay it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)We must not addresss gun control issues after these kind of events. You know why? Because they don't want gun control legislation passed.
WA and CO ignored that crap and passed universal background checks.
Should we also not discuss police brutality in the wake of unarmed black people being murdered by cops?
cali
(114,904 posts)Recognizing political reality is not the same thing as supporting it. And I'm not even suggesting we shouldn't attempt to work on it.
As the man once asked, rhetorically: Have you no shame?
Twisting what people say is not commendable.
I am tired of the hollow words as well, think about what you just said. Bernie is a politician. Hmmm.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Otherwise it would just be hollow words.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)"You're not supposed to talk about guns after a shooting" might be the single dumbest NRA talking point out there. Does anyone say we're not supposed to talk about nuclear power after Fukishima? We're not supposed to talk about infrastructure after a bridge collapse or train wreck? Of course not.
But somehow when it comes to guns, right-wingers are always telling us that it's the wrong time to bring up the fact that we're the only first world nation with a severe gun violence problem.
cali
(114,904 posts)I've contributed money. I've never been a member of the NRA.
I have no problem at all with Hillary's statement today. I have no problem with bringing up gun control after a horrific incident. I do have a problem with what th op did and with that article.
Now why don't you....... (use your imagination)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What's wrong with bringing up Bernie's weakness on gun control in the aftermath of a shooting? Particularly since Hillary called for action on gun violence and Bernie didn't.
Would it be OK to bring up, say, Rick Perry's pro-gun stances? Or Ted Cruz's? Or anyone except Bernie's?
840high
(17,196 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)on gun control is not weak but reasonable. And comparing his position to Cruz or Perry's? Dishonest as it gets
You made the slimy, false claim that I'm an nra supporter. That shows just what you are.
We're done. On ignore you go. And you can go..... fly a kite.
George II
(67,782 posts)That's what we see here all the time. So, is his "current position" the same as it was 40 years ago?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The gun nut meme is dead, move on.
sheshe2
(83,759 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Bernie has voted in favor of a nationwide ban on assault weapons, a nationwide ban on high-capacity magazines of over ten rounds, and nationwide expanded background checks that address unsafe loopholes.
Bernie believes assault weapons, as well as magazines holding more than ten bullets, should be banned nationwide.
He does not support liability for gun companies for actions by gun owners.
Apart from the last point, how much farther does Hillary want to go on gun control. SPECIFICALLY?
This is serious question. I'm open to a serious answer.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts). . . but it did not offer solutions.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you want a serious discussion, you're gonna have to start by not grossly distorting the gun industry immunity bill that Bernie voted for. I've heard this kind of thing so much I wrote an OP explaining what was actually going on, rather than repeat myself over and over.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629325
What's disappointing is that most of the people defending that bill, or mischaracterizing it the way that you have, probably wouldn't be siding with the NRA over this if not for the fact that Bernie voted for it. But since Bernie can do no wrong, they suddenly grasp for the NRA talking points.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I disagree with Sanders on that vote, but it's not a make-or-break issue for me.
If Sanders were truly a pro-NRA gun nut who opposes gun control, it might color my opinion of him. But he supports most of the same measures as Clinton and other gun control advocates -- background checks, etc.
I think he made a bad choice on that one. But on the spectrum of issues, it's way down there for me.To be honest, while I generally am in favor of gun control, I'm generally middle-of-the-road on it.
Gun control is one of those emotional issues that has implacable sides in perpetual gridlock. I do agree with Sanders that rather than two sides digging in their heels, it would be preferable to find ways to look for a balanced approach to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.
You have no problem with bringing up gun control, yet you seem to have a problem with SOME people bringing up gun control.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Just like all of the others who were sickened by this thread.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Is that your go to insult when people push back against lies?
MoveIt
(399 posts)You only survived a 5-2 hide on this bullshit post. Welcome to ignore.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If that's not a personal attack nothing is.
Bad jury.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)isn't sleazy.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Or quit adding to the sleaze.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)high fiving typical of gotcha threads. But surprisingly, no evidence has been posted but plenty of "Google it!"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But DU isn't as gullible as the American public.
cali
(114,904 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Can't really do anything wrong if the result benefits your candidate.
George II
(67,782 posts)The title is "Sanders 'saddened' by on-air shooting"
This is what he said, QUOTE:
"I am saddened by the senseless deaths of Alison Parker and Adam Ward,” the Democratic presidential candidate told The Hill in a statement.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)position to take.
Once again the differences between Sanders and O'M and Clinton are made clear...gun control is simply not a priority for a Vermont Senator.
It is good to see the differences so voters have a clear choice, I have no problem with a candidate taking a different view and sticking to it....primaries should be about choice.
You can get an F rating from the NRA for not sleeping with a gun.
..........
Cue the usual NRA talking points making a fresh appearance outside the Gungeon.
Although at least the NRA waits the automatic 3 days after a gun tragedy before they do.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You guys didn't even wait one before exploiting a tragedy to help your candidate.
Say hello to kettle.
ms liberty
(8,574 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Sadly, I'm not surprised.
artislife
(9,497 posts)they are pretty shameless on how they use victims to score their political points.
It seems to be an eagerness combined with gleefullness.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Huh. Odd.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Not odd, predictable.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But of course that is because they don't want any gun control legislation passed.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)pending logo of the NRA.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)None since.
Opportunistic bastards.....All righty, then, mate!
I guess folks simply do not realize how similar their complaints are to the NRA after every gun tragedy..which, again, is doing Sanders no favors in the Democraric Party primary.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nice try, mate.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It just shows everyone here who will stoop the same level as the NRA by lying about candidates and their supporters.
monmouth4
(9,705 posts)actually stating a plan. She took advantage of a tragic act and threw in some word salad. She is so not impressive..
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)the 2nd Amendment.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It should be no mystery at this point, and isnt to anyone paying attention.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Certainly nothing that would've prevented this.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)not to turn this tragedy a political slinging match , unlike some politicians .
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Because that is what they say. "While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent."
I personally don't stand with the NRA on that ridiculous excuse not to discuss this problem.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)To make it a #berniesabadman issue. I was not disappointed. Carry on if you choose. Ya'll aint doin shit.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Actually, Bernie's stance on guns does not even come close to disturbing me as much as Hillary's willingness to send Americans overseas - with guns and bombs - in order to kill and be killed.
Not even in the same universe.
romanic
(2,841 posts)to start bringing this into another Sanders vs Clinton debate. SMFH you should be ashamed for even trying this shit. -_-
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)...pandering isn't very meaningful.
While she was a senator, how much gun control did HRC sponsor or cosponsor?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)due to a sickness in this country where many feel the right to have a weapon that kills is more of a right than living.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 26, 2015, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)
djean111
(14,255 posts)Senator Feinstein's own description of the amendment from the Congressional record (emphasis is mine);
I offer an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill to address a humanitarian issue that I have actually thought a great deal about over a long period of time; that is, the use of the cluster bomb. The human death toll and injury from these weapons is felt every day, going back decades. Innocent children think they are picking up a play toy in the field and suddenly their arm is blown off.
I believe we need to take a look at our policies and adjust them. Specifically, our amendment would prevent any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until the rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as inhabited parts of cities or villages or in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees.
Here is how the vote to not fund cluster bombs went -
Dayton (D-MN), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wyden (D-OR)
15 Democrats and every Republican voted NAY (R's not listed):
Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY)
My senator, Nelson (DINO-Fl) also voted no, which is yet another reason I will never vote for him.
Yeah, Hillary - she is "concerned" about violence, but that's about it, IMO.
840high
(17,196 posts)did not have a gun he would have found another weapon.
SunSeeker
(51,555 posts)Mass killings are directly related to the level of gun ownership in a country.
Less guns means less death.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's news to me.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
I'll take the progressive candidate over Hillary.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Sanders voted against the original Brady Act in 1993, which required background checks for most gun purchasers, but voted to expand background checks to all gun sales in 2013.
http://thehill.com/regulation/252031-sanders-saddened-by-on-air-shooting
cali
(114,904 posts)racist death penalty.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Neither of them said anything about laws that restrict firearms. One of the said we must end gun violence, a statement with which the NRA would agree completely. Clinton is usually considered "tougher" on gun control than Sanders. That part is correct.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Anti-war . I was banned for the gun group long before the Hillary, African American, Primaries Group, but demented, desperate people cause gun violence, not the only thing keeping us from a hostile police state , which the forefathers knew was possible .
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)By your ridiculous logic, Bernie Sanders is an advocate for gun violence!
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Nothing at all.
Your desperation is showing.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That is a strike against her.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)the pocket of big kitty.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Like Judge Smails in Caddyshack Hillary is in favor of goodness and opposed to badness.
Props to Senator Sanders for not rising to the bait.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Didn't use this to cater to his campaign, said the victims names and not the assailant.
This is exactly the kind of behavior that gets him my vote.
Sorry Hillary, just shouting about it every time it happens changes nothing.
Change will be made, let's have actions speak louder than tweets.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Overall, Bernie Sanders believes in a middle-ground solution in the national gun debate, saying in a recent interview:
“Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country — 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.”
Gun Control: Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the exception of instant background checks to prevent firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and a federal ban on assault weapons.Manufacturer Liability: Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the misuse of their products, just as any other industry isn’t held accountable for how end-consumers use their products.
Gun Control
Bernie believes that gun control is largely a state issue, because attitudes and actions with regards to firearms differ greatly between rural and urban communities. Nevertheless, Bernie believes there are situations where the federal government should intervene.
He voted in favor of requiring background checks to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of felons and the mentally ill, passing a federal ban on assault weapons, and closing loopholes which allows private sellers at gun shows and on the internet to sell to individuals without background checks.
What examples are there to show this divide between rural and urban communities?
The state of Vermont, which Bernie represents as senator, is the most gun-friendly state in the nation, while at the same time it boasts the absolute lowest rate of gun-related crime.
How does Bernie believe gun legislation in the United States should be handled?
Bernie believes in middle-ground legislation:
“[C]oming from a rural state, I think I can communicate with folks coming from urban states where guns mean different things than they do in Vermont where it’s used for hunting,. That’s where we’ve got to go. We don’t have to argue with each other and yell at each other. We need a common-sense solution.”
To what extent does Bernie believe that gun regulation should be a federal issue?
Bernie has voted in favor of a nationwide ban on assault weapons, a nationwide ban on high-capacity magazines of over ten rounds, and nationwide expanded background checks that address unsafe loopholes.
Bernie believes assault weapons, as well as magazines holding more than ten bullets, should be banned nationwide. Why?
In a recent speech, Bernie explained that, in his view, assault weapons should be categorically banned:
The gun show loophole should be closed to prevent private sellers from selling firearms without background checks.
What is the gun show loophole?
Federal law currently stipulates that only licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct background checks. The gun show loophole is a political term referring to the ability of private sellers to sell to private buyers without the need of any background check. Currently only ten states require background checks for purchases at gun shows. Moreover, according to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, a private seller is classified as any seller who doesn’t rely on gun sales as the principal way of making their living. Because of this, it is easy to imagine that many individuals who have a regular source of income outside of selling firearms can claim that they are private sellers. This allows these individuals to exploit the gun show loophole and sell guns without requiring background checks.
What does Bernie propose to do about this?
Bernie has voted in favor of expanded background checks for all commercial sales with an exemption for sales between “family, friends, and neighbors”. Bernie has also voted in favor of a national instant background check system.
How else does Bernie believe we can address gun-related atrocities such as those committed in communities like Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz., Chattanooga, Tenn., and Charleston, S.C.?
Bernie believes that we have a crisis in addressing mental health issues in this country, saying in a recent interview:
“We need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it. But some people think it’s going to solve all of our problems, and it’s not. You know what, we have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don’t have that and we should have that.”
Given that 23 percent of the perpetrators of mass shootings have been found to suffer from mental health issues, Bernie believes that expanding access to mental health care can address some of the root causes of gun-related violent crime.
Learn more about Bernie’s stances regarding access to mental health care here. Also, learn about his policies with regards to addressing other structural causes of violent crime here.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Seems she has an exact plan for everything.
Let's see it.
Omaha Steve
(99,632 posts)He likes Bernie for his gun position.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Even in tragedy you cant wait to score political points for your candidate! shame on you
People died and the only thing you can say is "why didn't Bernie call for action on gun violence " even though he expressed he was saddened by the actions of drangedned man
You are no different than Republicans who pimped out 9/11 or other tragedies
MoveIt
(399 posts)but one thing these folks keep proving is they have no shame.
BooScout
(10,406 posts) BooScout
(10,406 posts) 
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Could we not wait until tomorrow maybe to try to score (unwarranted) political points from their deaths? Bernie's and Hillary's responses were both entirely appropriate, but the glee with which you jump on this is not.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If it was me that was gunned down by a nut that shouldn't have a gun I'd want the country to discuss it IMMEDIATELY. YMMV.
The NRA floats that "let's not talk about it now" stuff every time purely because they oppose ANY and all sensible gun laws. Not because they "respect" the latest murder victims.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Just because you're doing it for Hillary doesn't mean you get a pass.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I doubt it. And do you deny that you're trying to score political points specifically for your candidate as opposed to having a reasoned discussion on gun control? I don't think anyone here, or the candidates, are opposed to reasonable gun control measures, so why are you specifically trying to make this a Hillary v. Bernie issue? It's classless, in my opinion.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)Even the father and fiance of the reporter who were killed spoke out and President Obama.
It's time for people to stop shoving the idea of gun control laws under the rug.
MoveIt
(399 posts)Opportunistic
Craven
Vile.
108vcd
(91 posts)He represents his constituency, as senators are supposed to do, or he wouldn't get elected
But to say he isn't pro-common sense gun control, is absolute BS
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Not the United States of America as a whole. He voted against the Brady Bill and a number of other gun control measures, as I posted here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=549509
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But here it is again in case people are confused by your claim that he's anti-gun control (I'm sure it was just an oversight):
WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
George II
(67,782 posts)...should have little bearing on what a Senator does for the entire country, especially since he's from the second least populated state.
So, just because he comes from a state of about 600,000 people he should ignore the issues of a city of 8,000,000 people, or the other 320 million people in the country?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He voted for gun control as a US Senator.
SunSeeker
(51,555 posts)When speaking to Jake Tapper on July 5, in trying to defend his 2005 vote in favor of giving gun manufacturers certain tort immunities available to no other product manufacturer, Bernie appeared to claim Vermont gun owners were more responsible gun owners than those in "Chicago" (African Americans?) and "Los Angeles" (Latinos?). As he states at 0:42-1:00 in this video:
By the way, those Vermont "hunters" seem to hit more people, per capita, than Chicago and Los Angeles gun owners. The number of gun deaths due to injury by firearms in Vermont is 9.2 per 100,000 population. In California, it is 7.7; in Illinois it is 8.6. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)His comments come in the wake of the shootings last month in Newtown, Conn. The killing of 20 children in the town has spurred gun-control advocates to seek restriction on the ownership of certain firearms such as military-style assault rifles.
"Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.
"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/27/170393072/gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more-obama-says
SunSeeker
(51,555 posts)He is just acknowledging the gun culture of rural America.
I have to get up for work in the morning, so you will have to carry on in this thread without me.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Seems like they're saying the same thing.
Then there's Hillary's comments on gun use by rural folks:
"You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl," Clinton said in Valparaiso, Indiana, on Saturday.
"Some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It's part of culture. It's part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter." Video Watch Clinton discuss guns »
A visibly agitated Obama accused Clinton on Sunday of acting like "Annie Oakley ... packin' a six-shooter" in her attempts to connect with gun owners.
"She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment," he said, his voice rising. "She's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, [like] she's packin' a six-shooter! C'mon! She knows better."
But this isn't the first time in the primary race that the New York senator has spoken about unloading some shotgun shells.
At her first campaign stop in Wisconsin on February 16, Clinton told an audience at The Brat Stop in Kenosha about her childhood hunting experience.
"You know you may not believe it, but I've actually gone hunting," she said during a riff about gun control and protecting the Second Amendment. "I know, you may not believe it, but it's true. My father taught me to shoot a hundred years ago."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/candidates.guns/
Annie Oakley!
Obama is a funny guy, don't you agree?
SunSeeker
(51,555 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...he has an overriding responsibility to ALL of the citizens of the United States.
This is a country of 320+ million people, Vermont is a state of about 600,000 people. He's one of only 100 Senators.
He's really off base with those comments about hunters in Vermont and comparing them with the people of Chicago, or Los Angeles, or New York.
There is no rationalization of his vote to give legal protection to gun manufacturers (or against the Brady Bill).
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)before trying to make political hay out of a tragedy.
Hill ar ee! Hill ar ee! Hill ar ee!
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I ask because, usually I see it from the NRA crowd right after a shooting to deflect conversation regarding gun control.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)sail instead of the wind.
I bet the bodies hadn't even been removed yet before they were focus-grouping the "best" statement.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)or is that just hyperbole?
And yes it is about how our candidates responded to the event and responses to gun control. One mentioned it the other did not.
Just so happens to be the one who did not, doesn't have the most progressive history on gun control.
cali
(114,904 posts)Unlike YOU with your blatantly false assertions.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and other actual Democrats had to represent their constituencies, which are much more diverse than snow-white (in more ways than one) Vermont. What this tells me is that if Bernie Sanders had been a Senator for a state like New York his views and his votes would have been much different.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You guys keep it classy.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)the unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people
riversedge
(70,218 posts)make a good point about representing their constituencies.
I read your comment and pondered making this comment. It is something I have thought of many times when I see comments about Hillary's war vote. But have never said it in writing.
Hillary was from nycity. She dealt with the aftermath of the Trade Towers horror day and day on a personal basis. She saw, felt, heard the horror from her constituents. She walked among them. I have heard her speech a few times-videos on the Senate floor. She talked often of that day during her speech--and the aftermath. Maybe if she had been from Vermont and not so personally involved her vote would have been different.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Smearing Bernie in an attempt to defend her vote for the Iraq war.
Despicable.
riversedge
(70,218 posts)not said anything about not knowing about personal tragedy-so do not try to pin that on me. I know of Bernie's family and the horrors he suffered and mostly likely still grieves for today--and have not said nor implied anything to that effect.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)1) Hillary wasn't any more personally involved than any other American who didn't lose a loved one that day
2) That's still no excuse to vote for the war
Congrats on exploiting the victims of 9/11 to defend your candidate's vote.
riversedge
(70,218 posts)referring to the war vote and Hilary being a Senator from NY. If you can not comprehend that then you have a problem.
Now you get it I hope. I am done with your personal attack and stupidity. Good night.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I brought up his family to show how absurd that kind of implication was.
You don't get to stake a claim in the misery in suffering of others and then use it to say that others don't care.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)It was a very emotional time for the people of NYC. They had their opinions, some were for going to war, some were not, but that's their thing. I didn't feel I had the right to tell them how to feel.
No more than I did when I was uncomfortable seeing the jubilation on the streets of NYC when Bin Laden was killed. I said nothing when it was announced here on DU and let those from there, and elsewhere, sort it out and there was a high level of emotion with those who lived in the area and celebrated and those who didn't see it as a good thing.
I've never even been to NYC, myself, the furthest I've been that way was D.C.
riversedge
(70,218 posts)for your comment. I actually went to nyc the following spring---raw emotions-the emotions were still high. There was an education conference there at the time.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You make a good point about Clinton representing the place most effected by 9-11.
But two points.
1)I live very near Vermont, an I can tell you, people in this neck of the woods were every bit as emotionally affected by 9-11, as was the whole country.
2) By the time the Iraq War debate arose, there had been enough time to separate out the visceral emotional response to 9-11 from the merits of that specific policy. It was quite clear to many Americans that the Bush administration was either exploiting that tragedy or -- to be charitable -- the administrator was simply misguided and responding to bad intelligence.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)voting against the Brady Bill. It makes me wonder how many other incidences where Bernie did not take the money directly and the rewards was great for the cause has happened.
cali
(114,904 posts)spent on ads to defeat Peter Smith. Put up or......
Making shit up is disgusting. And you are doing it.
Go praise your own greedy candidate funded DIRECTLY with filthy private prison corporation money. And so much more sleazy money.
Unlike hilly, Bernie isn't for sale.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)on the Brady bill, yes, he gave them a reward.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Two lives that have been lost to gun violence are being used as political fodder to smear a candidate. The fact that some people here are willing to parade the corpses around in order to advance an agenda makes me sick to my stomach. Talk about the candidate's voting records, talk about their personal stance, but don't drag the fallen into a filthy mud wrestling contest.
Respect the dead, dammit!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
840high
(17,196 posts)
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)are dead and you have to push your crap.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts).
.
.
That, Rhett, is class.
Hillary couldn't even take a moment to pay a quiet moment of respect.
And then, for not taking the cheap opportunity he's excoriated. What a bunch of bullshit.
I am sickened, but not surprised.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Continue to challenge them on issues and not let them distract with ad hominem attacks.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And they complain about us.
I'm bookmarking this for the next time one of them says Bernie's supporters should call out flame bait when our side posts it.
MoveIt
(399 posts)Some poster calling itself some variation on the ever so believable name pattern <Something>Dem posted that here today.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I think his reaction was perfectly sane and heartfelt.
Is Hillary's call to end gun violence meaningful in any way? I don't think so. How does she plan to stop it? By imprisoning more people?
How about we have some thoughtful debate about getting rid of handguns and automatic weapons all together (including for the majority of our law enforcement) like first world countries already do. The Second Amendment would still stand with access to rifles which was its intention for hunting and self protection.
Bernie isn't against gun control and this OP is disingenuous to imply he is.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Would you support this?
A ban on the sale of assault weapons
Limits to firearm magazine capacities
Mandatory background checks for online and gun-show purchases
Prohibitions on cross-state conceal-carry
Enforcement of trigger lock laws
Bans on underage firearm possession
72-hour background checks
Increases on minimum prison sentences for crimes involving firearms
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)See my posts above.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)romanic
(2,841 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
I'm sorry it had to be said in gif form. For real.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)They made a point of saying that Bernie Sanders didn't issue a call for action on gun control? I must have missed that. Maybe you ought to contact them and suggest it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)